This might even be worth a try...

[martin]

this thread was almost a month old, I think that post was useless...

no, pointing out that IV>EA nullifies any other offenses

[Shwart!!]

But that point is a given, a universal constant. Therefore, stating it was indeed unnecessary.

Shwart!!

[xyzyxx]

EA < ∞ < IV

[xander]

By definition, * < ∞. Thus, clearly, EA < ∞. Duh!

Perhaps you meant EA < * < IV ?

xander

[NeatNit]

1. how do you make that symbol?
2. I think that was the game infinity (should be in the top of the page in the IV lounge)

[martin]

But that point is a given, a universal constant. Therefore, stating it was indeed unnecessary.

Shwart!!

fair point

2. I think that was the game infinity (should be in the top of the page in the IV lounge)

even if he didn't mean it it's true

[NeatNit]

No it's not. EA<*<IV<∞

too bad it's going to take a few more years for it to... you know. but the prototype is awesome
IV is not better than ∞, it's going to be a full universe!!! if someone finds the end of it, i'm going to pay him/her -100$

[KingAl]

Yes; the bigger and more accurate the simulation, the better the game, regardless of one's interest in the genre, the quality of the gameplay, or any other factors.

[Shwart!!]

I don't think he mentioned accuracy, just size.

I feel they cannot be compared. One, IV has three currently released games, while Infinity is nowhere near release. Two, Infinity is a space MMO. IV has nothing involving space or MMOs (yet-possibly Subversion, though I hope its not a MMO.).

And... it looks like the thread has decomposed to primarily the bickering of a noob and two young peeps, with some random interjections.
I'm going to stop posting here.

(-1 Young bickering peeps)

Shwart!!

[xyzyxx]

By definition, * < ∞. Thus, clearly, EA < ∞. Duh!

Perhaps you meant EA < * < IV ?

xander

Perhaps I did.
I was trying to use proper algebraic notation, but I guess I failed it.

[KingAl]

I don't think he mentioned accuracy, just size.

I don't see how the distinction is relevant; it's still a silly thing to say.

[xander]

By definition, * < ∞. Thus, clearly, EA < ∞. Duh!

Perhaps you meant EA < * < IV ?

xander

Perhaps I did.
I was trying to use proper algebraic notation, but I guess I failed it.

Actually proper mathematic notation would probably look something like this:

Let A be the set that contains all possible sets. Then, for all x in A, EA ≤ x ≤ IV.

xander

[NeatNit]

EA<*<IV<∞
let's just all agree, and stop killing ourselves.



edit: I just saw something kind weird... if someone writes X>Y then it means that X is more than Y. but, actually, if you look at it, X>Y, you see that the symbol shows a small part of Y equals almost all of X. if you didn't understand me that's alright, I couldn't even understand myself. but... |<l did that help?


so if what I just said is true (whatever I meant) it means:
EA>*>IV>∞

[KingAl]

EA<*<IV<∞
let's just all agree, and stop killing ourselves.

No, I'm not agreeing when you're wrong